ArticleEar and hearing
Prevalence and Predictors of Hearing Loss Among Farmworkers in the Mexico-US Border Region: A Cross-Sectional Study with National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Comparison.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the prevalence and predictors of audiometrically measured hearing loss among farmworkers in the Mexico-US border region and compare outcomes with Latino adults from a national survey.
designCross-sectional study with National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) comparison. Farmworkers (n = 113) completed otoscopy, tympanometry, air conduction audiometry, and a brief questionnaire. Audiometric outcomes were restricted to participants with ≥1 normal tympanogram. High-frequency hearing loss was >25 dB HL at 4 or 8 kHz in either ear; World Health Organization (WHO) hearing loss was better-ear PTA >25 dB HL across 0.5 to 4 kHz. NHANES comparison included Latino adults ≥18 years with valid audiometry from 2015 to 2016 and 2017 to March 2020 (n = 5046). We compared prevalence (χ²/Fisher), estimated crude odds ratios (ORs), and fit logistic regression adjusting for age and sex.
resultsAmong farmworkers (mean age 49.0 yrs), 63% had high-frequency hearing loss and 59% self-reported fair/poor hearing. Self-report (fair/poor) was associated with higher odds of high-frequency hearing loss (OR = 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 7.2). In multivariable models, age (OR = 1.07 per year, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.11), male sex (OR = 3.53, 1.26 to 9.87), and greater perceived noise exposure (OR = 1.33, 1.02 to 1.73) were associated with higher odds of high-frequency hearing loss; hearing protection use was not. High-frequency hearing loss prevalence was higher in farmworkers than NHANES Latinos (62.5% versus 42.2%; χ²(1) = 17.2, p < .001; OR = 2.29, 1.53 to 3.42). The association persisted after age adjustment (OR = 1.83, 1.10 to 3.05) and remained elevated but not statistically significant after additional adjustment for sex due to wider CIs (OR = 2.23, 0.95 to 5.24).
conclusionsFarmworkers carry a high burden of high-frequency hearing loss. A one-item self-report question can help triage on-site audiometric testing. Findings support employer provision and fit-training of hearing protection and community-based hearing conservation efforts targeting high-noise tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.